Hardee v. Bio-Medical Applications of South Carolina

South Carolina Supreme Court · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyMedical provider liability to third partiesdutythird-party non-patientmedical providerwarning

Facts

Appellants were seriously injured when their car was struck by Patient's vehicle minutes after Patient received dialysis treatment from Respondent. Patient was an insulin-dependent diabetic with a brittle diabetic condition and had undergone a nearly four-hour hemodialysis treatment before being released to drive home. Appellants alleged Respondent failed to warn Patient about the ill effects that could result from dialysis, failed to recognize that Patient was experiencing insulin shock or low blood sugar when he left, and failed to perform normal post-treatment tests or monitoring before release. The trial court granted summary judgment solely on the ground that a medical provider owes no duty to third-party non-patients.

Issue

Whether a medical provider can owe a duty to a third-party non-patient when the provider allegedly fails to warn its patient of treatment-related risks, including risks associated with driving immediately after the procedure, and that failure results in injury to the third party.

Rule

Although medical malpractice actions generally may be maintained only by the patient, not every action against a medical provider is a medical malpractice action. A medical provider who administers treatment that it knows may have detrimental effects on a patient's capacities and abilities owes a duty to prevent harm to the patient and to reasonably foreseeable third parties by warning the patient of the attendant risks and effects before administering the treatment.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a pain clinic in Columbia, Nora Ellison received an infusion that the clinic staff knew could temporarily impair alertness and reaction time. The staff discharged her without warning her not to drive, and ten minutes later she struck Malik Turner at a downtown intersection.

If Malik sues the clinic for negligence, the clinic argues it owed no duty because Malik was never its patient. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority recognized a narrow exception to the general rule that actions against medical providers are ordinarily maintained by patients. Where a provider administers treatment it knows may have detrimental effects on a patient’s capacities and abilities, it may owe a duty to reasonably foreseeable third parties by warning the patient of attendant risks before treatment. Malik, as a member of the motoring public allegedly endangered by the patient’s impaired driving, falls within that foreseeable field of danger.